Real World Event Discussions

The 12th Planet/Nibiru/ Zacharia Stitchen/ End Time/ The Gods of Eden & the Mayan Calender/Alternative Belifes

POSTED BY: piratejenny
UPDATED: Monday, June 5, 2006 10:46
VIEWED: 30595
PAGE 7 of 13

DANFAN

Sunday, April 16, 2006 4:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Except Danfan all you have done is describe an orbit using Keplers laws. You have not actually calculated if this is a sable orbit by including Newtons laws of gravitation. What you did was describe an elipse and then say "well the far end is not outside the oort cloud so that's ok...." That isn't enough.

Oort cloud objects are bits of matter effectively just hanging in space, out there the suns gravity is too weak to pull them in so they sit...

Again, let me preface my comments by stating that I am working from a 30 year old string of college physics courses and some recent internet research. I am NOT an expert in this topic. So I could be wrong. And if I am, then I hope to learn something here.

That caveat in place, once again into the breach...

The thing that keeps bothering me here was succinctly summed up by your statement that when you get that far out, matter "just hangs there" because the Sun's gravity is too weak to operate on it effectively. That is inconsistent with everything I can find on the subject. The mathematics don't support it. You state that I described an orbit using Kepler's laws without taking Newton's gravitational laws into account. In the Wikipedia entry on Kepler's laws, I found this:

Quote:
Kepler provided a kinematic mathematical model of the empirical observations, which Newton then interpreted using calculus and his new physics.

Hence, Kepler described what could be observed actually happening. Newton came up with a theory for why it happened as observed. I can find nothing in Newton's laws that indicate that Kepler's laws cease to function at some distance. Merely that they function more slowly and hence are more easily disturbed by other gravitational objects.

At this website:

http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/L/longperiod.html

There is a quote describing a long period comet thus:

Quote:
A comet with a period of more than 200 years and as much as several million years. Long-period comets, together with Halley-type comets, are now believed to come from the Oort Cloud, an enormous reservoir of frozen cometary nuclei orbiting the Sun at a distance of tens of thousands of astronomical units.

The italics on "orbiting the Sun" are mine. Gravity doesn't stop working because it is weak. It is merely weaker. If the velocities are correspondingly slower, you should still see it do all the things you see it do in the inner solar system. In fact, the statement you made that these Oort cloud objects "hang" until "disturbed" is internally inconsistent. Disturbed by what? The gravitational field of another star no closer than the Sun is the answer. If the Sun's gravitational influence is too weak to affect the motion of Oort Cloud objects, then so is the gravitational influence of the other stars in our neighborhood. They are less close to our Oort Cloud than we are.

And again, here:

http://www.nineplanets.org/kboc.html

There is this quote:

Quote:
In 1950 Jan Oort noticed that

1. no comet has been observed with an orbit that indicates that it came from interstellar space,

2. there is a strong tendency for aphelia of long period comet orbits to lie at a distance of about 50,000 AU, and

3. there is no preferential direction from which comets come.

Again, the italics are mine. This statement is consistent with th website I referenced in an earlier post that stated that the most long period comets originated at 44000 A.U.s from the Sun. "Long period" means that the comet has a period, hence an orbit with an aphelion out near the 40K to 50K A.U. mark. This is an orbit that has an aphelia about 100 times farther out than the postulated Planet X.

If it can happen at the larger distance, it can happen at the smaller distance. As an example, in the Wikipedia entry for Comet Hyakutake (which visited our neighborhood in 1996:

Quote:
Hyakutake is a long period comet. Before its most re

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

REAVERMAN

Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by danfan:
Reaverman...

I still take issue with this. I interpret what you are saying to mean that you believe that any object of sufficient mass will break an eccentric enough orbit just because of its mass, with no other external influence needed. This violates the mathematics of orbital mechanics. Further, I think that your use of the "brick/rubber band" analogy leads to a false conclusion. Gravity does not behave like a rubber band. Gravity is a distortion in space time caused by mass. A far more appropriate analogy would be to consider gravity like an incline in space time resulting from the mass causing a "low spot" in space-time. Rubber is a material with an elastic modulus and a concommitant point of elastic failure. It is this point of elastic failure that causes the brick to break free from a rubber band. "Elastic modulus/failure" does not behave the same way as an "incline." The latter analogy is the more appropriate one.

Actually, Einstein created the gravity well analogy because it was easier for people to comprehend something two dimensional. Gravitation is a three (according to some theories even a four) dimensional effect. gravity itself is a warping of space-time. When people think of gravity, they think of something pulling them down. In reality, gravity is the very fabric of space-time pushing you toward the center of the distortion.

Also, I know gravity doesn't behave exactly like a rubber band. It was the best analogy I could come up with at the time. What I was trying to convey was that if this planet ever existed, that the gravity would be so weak at the aphelion, that the planet's inertia would exceed escape velocity.

You're welcome on my boat. God ain't.

PIRATENEWS

Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:03 AM

Nibiru = Wormwood

Quote:
Chernobyl and the Bible

Because of a controversial translation of "chernobyl" as wormwood, some people believe that the Chernobyl accident was mentioned in the Bible:

Quote:
And the third angel sounded, and there fell a great star from heaven, burning as it were a lamp, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter.
-Revelation 8:10-11

The story appears to have spread to the West with a New York Times article by Serge Schmemann (Chernobyl Fallout: Apocalyptic Tale, July 25, 1986) in which an unnamed "prominent Russian writer" was quoted as claiming the Ukrainian word for wormwood was chernobyl.

The name of the city comes from the Ukrainian word for mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris), which is chornobyl. As a result, chornobyl has been translated by some to simply mean wormwood.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_accident

100,000 people died from the nuke bomb blast at Chernobyl/Wormwood. Might as well have been a planet falling from the sky.

Or maybe wormwood just refers to Absenth, which gets you so high you really do see planets falling from the sky?

Wash: That sounds like something out of science fiction.
Zoe: My other husband was in The Matrix, Dear.

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
http://radio.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/8912.php

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Since you've been pretty unwarrantedly confrontational and insulting to me I might as well return the favour.
Quote:
Originally posted by PirateJenny:
How did the summarians know about D.N.A, actually I never stated that anywhere in my posting you did

Quote:
ALSO Originally posted by PirateJenny:
for example the snake in the bible is Lucifer or the tempter, but really in summarian text Enki's symbol was the snake, and also the symbol for D.N.A which was known in those times,

Off too a bad start there, I understand that when you’re just free associating, typing whatever nonsense comes into your head you may forget what you've actually written.
Quote:
but yes via the Anunnakki the summarians were aware of D.N.A , there are about 8-9 book out by Zecharia Stichen of which I've read all but one and not anytime recently, so my advice to you if you want to know about summarians and D.N.A read the books, you might want to jump ahead and read "The Cosmic code", but if you haven't read his 1rst book "The 12th Planet" your not going to have much background so read that one 1rst if your so inclined.

These are a lot of words to say: "I don't know".
Quote:
Who ever said you should have Faith in Stitchen I know I certainly never did

You sound like most of those with blind faith:
"Just read the scriptures and your eyes will be opened". Not that you realise this, the faithful never do.
Quote:
And when did this all become about you, Please tell me how and why

Oh, good try no dice but nice try there. You told me "go read the books" I say "give me a reason why I should" and that's making it all about me huh?
Quote:
I'm not going to show you anything, because I don't have too, and more importantly I have no desire to.

And you have nothing to show...
Quote:
I'm not trying to prove anything to you or anyone, my posting this thread was never about that, you sound like you have a problem all I can say is don't make it mine, I was wanting to discuss this with those who were familar with his work, and hopefully at least were open to his work wether they agree with it or not.

Quote:
anyway if anyone wants to discuss the coming of Nibiru / the Mayan calendar or anything related, I'm interested

I'm trying to discuss anything related, as you asked, your the one who's got the problem with that, I can only assume that's because I'm not licking your and Stichen's arse and proclaiming how wonderful and right you both are. All I did is ask a question, one you've refused to answer and then began to spit the dummy and throw your toys out of the pram.

So here's what that suggests to me:
You can't adequately answer the question, and sub-consciously you know that. Cognitive Dissonance sets in between your inability to answer questions and your desire to believe Stitchen is correct, your desire to believe in a creator, without a religion getting involved. This causes frustration and anger, which you choose to vent at those who don't reaffirm your beliefs.

Your desire to believe in a creator, but your obvious vehemence against religion suggests you were possibly brought up in a very religious, possibly devout environment, and this is some kind of rebellion.

Point is I was truly prepared for an intelligent discussion, and I was prepared to listen to what you had to say, you truly WERE NOT prepared for any discussion whatsoever (Hint: I'm sorry but only letting those who agree with you speak isn't a discussion), and your truly not prepared to listen to what anyone has to say, unless you agree with what that is, of course. Wow, are you in training to be a dictator or something, my my you must really hate that pesky freedom of speech thing. I happen to like freedom of speech, especially since it obviously upsets the tin-foil hat crazies like you.
Quote:
I happen to agree with Mr. Stitchen and think highly of his work, no amount of debating that with you or

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
PJ,

What would make you happy? What is the reply you're looking for?

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

I'm not looking for anything , but I also don't have to prove anything to anyone, people are intitled to their own thoughts , if someone comes at me telling me to make them believe something or make them interested in something, thats not my job, nor is that my purpose and I'm not going to do it.

for example Citizen's post to me, he obviously has issues with what I posted , and thats fine, but I'm not going to pull up information in order to try to prove something to him, perhaps if he had approached me diffrently I might have done that, but he wasn't really interested, he wanted me to make him have an intrest, thats just not how I work, I guess I would like to discuss this with people who already have intrest!!

I have no problems telling people( anybody really) that I think alone the same lines as Zecharia Stitchen, but most people when you tell them that they look at you like you've just lost a marble, and then they want you to prove something to them. I have my reasons for thinking the way I do, and they make sense to me, if they don't to somebody else, then they don't but its not my job to prove anything to them or make them have an intrest or to try to explain why I think the way I do, If I feel the urge and want to do that then I will, but if I don't I won't. and if they don't like it to bad!!, this is who I am, this is me

PIRATEJENNY

Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by nuclearday:
Just to play devil's advocate a bit, PJ. I think Citizen may have a point. If history is any example, the intentions with which you create a thread, and what it turns out to be are often very different things. (Look through half of the threads in the RWED here and I think you'll see what I mean :)

My point is: I've seen many times that if you start a thread about some of your beliefs here, there's going to be alot of people coming by that feel differently than you. If I start a thread saying I love grits with gravy; I'm going to get alot of responses from people who prefer oatmeal.

It's in the nature of these forums that if you post your own viewpoint (especially in regards to your beliefs, religious or not), it's going to spark debate. Whether or not you're up to that is up to you, but it's not going to stop people coming here and doing just that. You can take a page from Dianetics and say "read the book," or you can try to provide some more info and maybe get some people interested.

Okay, that ran long. Sorry. Don't take this as an attack, either. I respect your views as much as anyone else, and am not interested in debating whether Stitchen is right or wrong. Just remember that alot of people are going to do just that. (You gotta admit this isn't exactly a mainstream concept you're putting up here. :)

________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

Thanks, and I never took it as an attack, I know its not a main stream idea and your right, people are going to do just that because its not mainstream.I agree with that, threads take all kinds of turns, and I don't have a problem with that, but citizen refused to except my answer it wasn't good enough for him, he wanted me to prove something to him, Something he had no real interest in, something of which I had no desire to do, and told him so and he still just couldn't except that. I never really wanted to debate Stitchen's work I just wanted to disguss it, I guess thats because I don't care if other people have issues with it or not actually I could careless. But your right!!

FLETCH2

Sunday, April 16, 2006 5:37 AM

Kepler used observations of Mars and then generated formulas to describe what he saw. Newton took gravitation and then worked out WHY Mars moved the way Kepler described. It is the difference between observing nature and understanding it. That's why Newton was a genius.

Imagine if you like that Kepler saw a steam engine and drew a picture of it but that Newton figured out how to build one. What you did was use Keplers drawings to evaluate the engine that Jenny described and then said "yeah that looks ok." Until you work out how to build Jenny's engine you have no idea if it works all you can say is that you can describe it with Kepler's laws.

In short without Newton it's meaningless.

Jenny you really need to see the Japanese Anime series "Geneshaft."

CITIZEN

Sunday, April 16, 2006 1:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by PirateJenny:
and I thought this would be more of a fun thread were people could take a break from all of the mad, politcal drama for awhile an indulge in some strange unfamilar but interesting territory.

Yes and if you weren't here, it could of been.

Quote:
If anyone has been confrontational its you Citizen

What you mean in my last post? Yes I told you I would be well done. Every post you've made to me was confrontational, and not confrontational in the normal debating sense, confrontational in the "shut up how dare you question me" sense. I just gave your attitude that you give off in every post to everyone back.

Quote:
Nor have I ever asked you or anyone to take my word for it, So what is your frack'n problem I never asked anything from you,

If all you wanted was a book club rendition from like minded people who all think Stitchen is right you should have said so, you didn't, you said "lets have a discussion on these and related issues" then had a tantrum when I, and others, tried to talk to you about related issues.

You're making the wild claims, so it's your 'Frack'n' problem.

In future the title you're looking for is:
"Zacharia Stitchen book discussion and Love-fest".

Quote:
I love freedom of speech and intend on excersising it every chance I get, its you who have the problem

Obviously not.

You're telling people they aren't allowed to post on your thread if they have differing opinions to yours, do I need to explain what freedom of speech is to you with pop up pictures.

Like many people who deeply understand THEIR rights you couldn’t give a flying fuck about anyone else’s. Your idea of freedom of speech is you’re free to say what you like and everyone else is free to keep their opinions to themselves. Sorry that’s not freedom of speech.

Quote:
you know I'm posting on an internet site I have no reason to lie, yes I don't like religion I abhorr it,

Then could you explain to me why pretty much every post of yours contains one lie after another? Like you know where you said you never said anything about DNA when it's right there in your first post. Your credibility is at rock bottom cup cake.

Quote:
but why is it when I tell you that I wasn't brought up in a religious household , you don't want to take my word for it, this is too funny

Do you have conversations with us all here in your head? Because you've never said what you're up bringing was, so I'm not ignoring your word for anything, the entire underlined portion of that quote is bullshit.

Wait you are actually having whole conversations on FFF.net in your head aren't you. Man that's too creepy, do you lose those threads you started in your head and start looking for them here?

Quote:
yes you asked a question and I answered you, but you weren't satisfied with my answer and so you got nasty,

Actually I posted the question on the 9th of April and you didn't bother to answer it until the 15th of April (yesterday) and that wasn't really an answer. You're damn right saying "the saucer people did it" ain't good enough, it's not an answer and it is a cop out.

I called you crazy because that's how you’re acting, like some sort of ranting nut on the street corner. If you try to pin them down and ask them a question on their wild claims they say "They're doing it! They're stealing my thoughts!"

Every posted reply to me was you trying to insult and anger me, it was only when I had had enough of your attitude "I can say what ever crazy baseless nuttyness I like and I can be deeply insulting to anyone who asks me questions about it" that I started to give it back. Like most people who start to try to take ‘the moral high ground’ you have the least right to it.

It went a little something like this:
Me: *Asks reasonable question that's perfectly in keeping with this thread.*
You: *Insult*
Me: All I want is an answer to my question.
You: I don't care, *insult* Stitchen says so!
Me: What does h

DANFAN

Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:50 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
Kepler used observations of Mars and then generated formulas to describe what he saw. Newton took gravitation and then worked out WHY Mars moved the way Kepler described. It is the difference between observing nature and understanding it. That's why Newton was a genius.

Imagine if you like that Kepler saw a steam engine and drew a picture of it but that Newton figured out how to build one. What you did was use Keplers drawings to evaluate the engine that Jenny described and then said "yeah that looks ok." Until you work out how to build Jenny's engine you have no idea if it works all you can say is that you can describe it with Kepler's laws.

In short without Newton it's meaningless.

OK. I agree with everything you just said. However, I don't think it in anyway refutes what I've stated before. I'll take one more swing, then I'm off to drill on Tagalog verb conjugation some more.

Newton's genius says this:

Force of gravitational attraction = M(m1*m2)/(r^2)

I will forgo the definition of the elements of the equation for brevity (please hold your applause, I apologize for the size of my other posts).

NOTHING in this equation constitutes a conditional exclusion based upon distance. This equation is valid to the ends of the universe (or as far as the speed of light reaches since the formation of the objects it describes, depending on which scientist you believe). If m1 (mass of the Sun) is sufficiently greater than m2 (mass of a planet or comet), then the gravitational effect of m2 on m1 can be ignored and Newton's equations simplify into Kepler's. Even if you ignore the simplification, the ONLY affect it has on Kepler's equations is that it places center of the Sun off from one of the foci in the ellipse. This results in a trivial change in the calculation of the aphelion of the planet as long as its mass is much less than the Sun's.

The only thing that overrides Newton's equation is... ANOTHER copy of Netwon's equation with ANOTHER mass substituted for our Sun such that the other mass exerts greater force upon the second object than the Sun. Period. That second mass can be another star, or immense interstellar molecular clouds, or a nearby planet, or whatever. But without another mass in the picture, Newton's equation is sufficient to establish a stable orbit, from our Sun's neighborhood out to the end of it's gravititional field (approx 4.7 billion light years) and back ( as long as the object is travelling at less than escape velocity).

OF COURSE THAT CAN'T HAPPEN... because this is a crowded universe with countless other local gravititational fields that render the Sun's gravitational influence effectively negligible at about a light year (as previously mentioned in another post).

However, that "one light year limit for the Sun's gravitational influence" is over 100 TIMES greater than the projected aphelion of an eccentric orbit with a period of 3600 years. So if that orbit is unstable, then some other force must be acting upon the object to make it so. It CANNOT be the planetary mass of the object itself that makes it break orbit (the brick breaking it's rubber band). That planet's mass is actually pulling on the Sun... thus helping to maintain the orbit. Of course, that planet's mass is also pulling on any other star in the vicinity... so once again, it all depends on which gravitational influence is stronger.

To clarify that last sentence, it is only the relative strengths of the gravitational forces in our stellar neighborhood that determines if the orbit is stable. And at .007 light years, The Sun is the undisputed big dog on the block. At that distance, if the planet has less than escape velocity and no other force acts upon it, then it comes back. Without fail.

If some other force is acting at that distance to render stable orbits impossible, post a link to its description. Or present the equation for it. Otherwise, we'll agree to disagree and part ways... each thinking the other is deluded.

RUE

Sunday, April 16, 2006 8:26 PM

Never mind!

I should have read further before I posted since my answer was here: "I never really wanted to debate Stitchen's work I just wanted to disguss it"

Hi PJ,

I guess I didn't frame my question well. What I wanted to know was this: do you want to discuss Stichen's writings or the ideas? My guess is that you want to discuss the writings with others who are familiar with them. OTOH I suspect you're not interested in discussing the ideas (the existence of planet X for example), which can be debated without the writings (eg through astronomy, physics etc instead).

Am I correct in this?

Sincerely,
Rue

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.